Second complaint maintainable after default dismissal when earlier complaint was not decided on merits and no mala fides were shown.
A complaint dismissed for default is not an adjudication on merits and does not amount to acquittal or discharge, so a second complaint on the same facts is generally maintainable; the bar against a fresh complaint applies only where the earlier dismissal was on merits, save in exceptional cases. Mere omission to disclose the earlier default dismissal does not by itself show suppression or lack of bona fides, especially where the second complaint is filed shortly after the first before the same Magistrate. The restored complaint and proceedings were therefore upheld.
Issues: (i) Whether a second complaint on the same facts is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default and not on merits; (ii) whether the second complaint was liable to be rejected for alleged suppression of the earlier dismissal and want of bona fides.
Issue (i): Whether a second complaint on the same facts is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default and not on merits.
Analysis: A dismissal of a complaint for default is not an adjudication on the merits and does not amount to an acquittal or discharge. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not bar a second complaint in such a situation. A distinction is drawn between dismissal after consideration under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and dismissal merely because the complainant was absent. A second complaint on the same facts is barred only where the earlier dismissal was on merits, except in very exceptional circumstances.
Conclusion: The second complaint was maintainable because the first complaint had been dismissed only for default.
Issue (ii): Whether the second complaint was liable to be rejected for alleged suppression of the earlier dismissal and want of bona fides.
Analysis: The earlier dismissal was before the same Magistrate and the second complaint was filed shortly thereafter. Mere omission to state in the second complaint that the first complaint had been dismissed for default did not, by itself, establish absence of bona fides. The surrounding circumstances did not justify rejection of the complaint on that ground.
Conclusion: The second complaint was not vitiated by suppression or lack of bona fides.
Final Conclusion: The order restoring the complaint and the proceedings was upheld, and the challenge to it failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint dismissed for default may be refiled on the same facts, because such dismissal is not a decision on merits and does not attract the bar against a second proceeding; only a dismissal on merits under the complaint-disposal provisions ordinarily limits a fresh complaint to exceptional cases.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
